Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Fwd: Defining a CBOR tag for RFC 5646 Language Tags

Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> Thu, 15 May 2014 12:31 UTC

Return-Path: <dave@cridland.net>
X-Original-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C9201A0285 for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 May 2014 05:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tivd055EveyH for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 May 2014 05:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-x229.google.com (mail-oa0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6C2E1A029A for <ltru@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 May 2014 05:31:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id m1so1141529oag.14 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 May 2014 05:31:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cridland.net; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=mTI6/IpeeotEkVe2zqEjEK5pimD5evUMeh7mdcyWT7A=; b=VaEfhE3B7QzWYLkls96valwP1SzugLuC+rbsB70kv86HQ7Ge8DVxagxACIsAkx45ZN EPVNWmBex/kahTDchITXjrM6JeXEmuWu4ovaUfaW82c34sUWORMmC4/VqSvtuERk8amm Yl8gEVn/ojlqe9QV6VQqIawyo+8fOgurhLmbI=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=mTI6/IpeeotEkVe2zqEjEK5pimD5evUMeh7mdcyWT7A=; b=gk2aem/UHKEcpQBPkE1gC/h/VbVQ/ew/z01JcOJEpL/CTQTj/vfPnCmiNqDPoKeBIk wSTXpKpny8RECL8BdFNmD1bEpkOTdOMr8edQSfFH+Itm2VAg0wd9e/1hNGzf1GBRcH3d z+E8vU9BpU0YkgldzhT8uT1FX+wxZuXzPouLvx1ArZNY4tDBH3HdSc9hjTpO4PFZwKBS iv7j44qTR9MBbwdqwks6HuAIhoYORSdhKZpV3WGFX0c0OJ7IGCpSlqc9eJEspyX/etTF qqzyMcWiLrTmra70U6igr2WLVHIkXBhGL9f0jt2g1aZe/gdCOswkzSrSdkly1I55LfYP Zq3w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl+r9dsYdA2L88oV8lXLQstdT2p2CtQwJGaeWIUqvZSQ0yvYtqAz97mqG81DSLQo9gLy5Q0
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.44.100 with SMTP id d4mr44959oem.6.1400157082770; Thu, 15 May 2014 05:31:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.60.100 with HTTP; Thu, 15 May 2014 05:31:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140515120647.GH13350@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <20140514144716.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.4ebffc2f64.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> <CAKHUCzz==S=rn=y8W5ECRPgkt-CdPkMUm8065JQ0R_x8bme1Zg@mail.gmail.com> <20140515120647.GH13350@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 13:31:22 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKHUCzwLRr=z6caE1Or9cwcgeke9ohS8q5u2DC7OKEgXgACHYQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2ee228c6eb804f96f79fc
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ltru/fp7cEoR6lgenySFvpnOX9ix1dss
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>, Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Fwd: Defining a CBOR tag for RFC 5646 Language Tags
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 12:31:34 -0000

Thanks for the corrections; I shall now slouch into silence because I
honestly have very little opinion.

On 15 May 2014 13:06, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

> Dave Cridland scripsit:
>
> > Of course, an invalid-UTF-8 based proposal simply means that it's no
> > longer UTF-8 per-se, and so needs itself to be tagged differently.
>
> The whole point of the invalid-UTF-8 was that the less fussy decoders of
> the day would quietly drop the hidden information and display the string.
> That is much less likely to happen now.
>
> > Exactly the same caveats apply to Plane 14 tagging, mind,
>
> Not so much.  Unicode renderers that don't understand language tags will
> not display them (because stuff on plane E is never displayed per its
> Unicode properties), or if the renderer doesn't even understand that,
> will at worst generate boxes or other "character unknown" glyphs,
> often only three of them.
>
> > The main consideration, I think, is what happens when a CBOR processor
> > encounters a language-tagged string when it doesn't understand the
> concept.
>
> Agreed, and if that is a serious problem, Plane E starts to look better.
>
>